USA v. Eddie Galindo-Mendez, No. 18-11516 (5th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-11516 Document: 00515134187 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 18-11516 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 26, 2019 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee v. EDDIE ESTUARDO GALINDO-MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:18-CR-25-1 Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Eddie Estuardo Galindo-Mendez appeals the sentence imposed for his bank robbery conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). For the first time on appeal, Galindo-Mendez argues that his placement of an apparent pipe bomb during the robbery did not justify an enhancement for a dangerous weapon that was “otherwise used” under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(D). Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 18-11516 Document: 00515134187 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2019 No. 18-11516 We review Galindo-Mendez’s unpreserved argument under the plain error standard. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To establish plain error, Galindo-Mendez must show (1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear or obvious and (3) that affects his substantial rights. See Id. If he makes such a showing, we have the discretion to correct the error but only if (4) it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. Section 2B3.1(b)(2) provides for a four-level increase if a “dangerous weapon was otherwise used.” “‘Otherwise used’ . . . means that the conduct did not amount to the discharge of a firearm but was more than brandishing, displaying, or possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, comment. (n.1(I)); see § 2B3.1, comment. (n.1). In light of the location of the apparent bomb and the nature of the specific threat indicated by the note that Galindo-Mendez handed to the bank teller, he has not shown clear or obvious error in the district court’s application of the enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(D). See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; United States v. Dunigan, 555 F.3d 501, 505-06 (5th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
